Gnug215 wrote:I KNOW he does. I'm just not so sure it's the kind of well-known, "standard" issues you can get diagnosed and treated for.

I think he suffers from issues similar to those that Trump does. In my view, people like that should indeed get some kind of treatment.

I wonder how many mental health issues gets fly under radar, because people assume it's part of their religious conviction. How do you separe deep religious conviction from mental illness?

A LOT. There's a lot that go unnoticed. A lot that aren't really specific diagnoses that demand treatment. A lot that aren't recognized as actual issues that SHOULD demand treatment.

Among those last ones, I'd say there's a type of semi-psychopath, jerk, bully, trolly, asshole kind of character, who is only a blight on society, but still gets to roam free. And a lot of those kinds of persons seem to latch on to a particular set of societal narratives, like religion, but also stuff like conspiracy theories, and science denialism of various kinds.

MarsCydoniaIt isn't just "long and ambiguous answers" that leave the door open to move from one position to another. Dishonest questions and assertions too. For exemple, (Leroy's ever-changing definition of choice/freedom/will/free will/libertarian free will/etc. and Leroy's definition of transcendent that means the opposite of transcendent come to mind

However the difference between you and I is that at least I have a clear position that everybody understands.Anyone who reads my post would know that I:1 Believe that we have free will, which means that at least sometimes we have more than one option. For example when I go to McDonalds I have the ability to choose from different types of hamburgers2 Having 2 options doesn’t necessarily imply that each option has exactly 50% probability of being chosen. 3 Constrains might affect (but not fully determine) my options. If I am hungry I might be more likely to pick the big hamburger, but I still have the ability to choose the small hamburger.

People might agree or disagree with me, but at least my position is clear anyone can understand it and spot and refute his points of disagreement. And you won’t find any contradiction in my posts. But when it comes to you, nobody knows what you position is, nobody knows if you believe in free will (as has been defined in this thread) and nobody knows what your points of disagreement are.

The fact is that no matter which position you adopt, I will always be able to find post where you asserted the opposite, I will always find contradictions. This is why you prefer to keep you position vague and ambiguous.

Do you believe in free will yes or no? What is dishonest about this question? Free will was defined since the very first page as the ability to make choices.